Good Luck...you have a chance to win this one, usually they go on compromise and will have you pay a small donation.
If you think that the laser gun was faulty, you can always go to the PD where the cop was from and check when the "gun" was last time calibrated, if it was pass the due date, the case is automatically dismissed, that's CT law.
Again RI might be different. If you will ask for continuance, they will try to settle the matter immediately as well, they don't really want to have the cop come over, trust me.
sorry guys, Im studying law enforcement, that's how I know, but from what it looks like, you have a good chance.
Good Luck anyway.

 

anyone want to wager???

in mass the law is the law - doesn't matter if you read studies or if YOU THINK the gun is out of wack

futhermore the police officer does not have to show up in mass they just need a representive from the dept..

 

[quote name='Bass' date='Feb 14 2005, 03:34 PM']anyone want to wager???

 

http://www.motorists.com/ma/tic.html



"Q: Doesn't the police officer have to appear in court?
A: Massachusetts law says that the ticket itself is evidence. That means you are presumed guilty because there is a piece of paper saying so. The magistrate will usually find you guilty on this basis no matter what you say. You have the right to appeal the magistrate's decision to a judge. In theory the same rules of evidence apply, but the judge will often find you not responsible if the police officer doesn't show up.

In 2001 the Appellate Division of the trial court ruled that the police department must send a representative to the appeal hearing or lose the case. In theory, you should be able to cite Boston Police Department vs. Alfred M. Moughalian, 2001 Mass. App. Div 61, and Boston Police Department vs. Semyon Dukach if the judge finds against you when the police department does not show up. "



Q: Has laser received judicial notice in Massachusetts?
A: Massachusetts judges routinely allow laser (LIDAR) evidence of speed. No appeals court has given a definitive ruling on when laser evidence is admissible. In the absence of a more recent ruling, courts should follow the guidance from the case Commonwealth v. Kathleen Whynaught, 377 Mass. 14 (1979), where the Supreme Judicial Court allowed use of radar evidence, saying:
It is our opinion that some foundation requirement pertaining to the accuracy of the particular radar instrument is appropriate in order to ensure that the persuasive force of scientific results is not improperly triggered. At present, however, we do not insist that this foundation be based exclusively on any one or two of the three principal tests or that testing occur with any given frequency. Instead, in any case where the issue is raised by the defendant, we leave it to the discretion of the trial judge to determine when a sufficient showing of the particular radar instrument's accuracy has been made. We assume that judges will closely examine the nature of all testing procedures and that they will be guided in their admission decisions by the quality of the tests performed, rather than by their quantity. At the same time, we expect that the testing requirements judges impose will not be so onerous as to make use of radar devices a practical impossibility.




Back to Frequently Asked Questions

 

Good luck to the original poster!

The "police department representative" thing is constitutionally questionable, and the one time I showed up and a "representative" rather than the actual policeman showed up, the judge dismissed the case. This was the Malden court, not the Commonwealth court.

As far as I can tell, the "quarter mile" part of the law is routinely ignored in court. Some day, some good lawyer will hopefully get radars thrown out when you aren't tracked for a quarter mile, but I doubt that day will be soon.

If you could get speed limits below those recommended by studies throw out, so we can get realistic speed limits in Massachusetts like they have in California, that would be great, but I'm not holding my breath....

Looking forward to hearing how you do!

 

Everyone,

Thanks for your comments. The bottom line is that I was found responsible by the magistrate. He did however think I had several good arguments and recommended that I appeal to the Judge. I paid the 20 USD to appeal to a judge.

In front of a Judge the actual officer must appear to be cross examined by the defendant.


I will get a court date in about one month.

Wish me luck again.

MR J

PS I had expected to lose this round and end up having to appeal to the judge.

 

Good for you... and good luck

 

Ugh, thats too bad.
I have one coming up as well.
I have a clean driving record, and I travel the road every single day, 120 miles a day.
he also didn't write down how he clocked me... all it says is 57 in 40 and nothing is checked, not estimated, not radar, nothing... just a number.
I know I was speeding, but not 57MPH.

Oh well...hopefully I can get it thrown out.

Good luck with the courts!

 

I beat my last ticket because the officer who pulled me over didn't show up after I appealed it. While waiting for my case to come up, I got to sit for about an hour and listen to all the other cases for the day. Despite many good arguments, some from a couple of very convincing lawyers, most everybody was found responsible. I have said it here before, but I think the best thing anyone can do if the get pulled over is to be polite and cooperative. You should attempt to be completely forgettable if receiving a ticket and just hope that the officer will not remember you. Then when the date of the hearing comes around, he won't even bother to show up. That is the best way to win IMHO. A good driving record helps too.